Like Butter! - Page 3

FramerT · #51 (**permalink**) November 30th, 2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

I have always considered the tank best as an infantry support vehicle. There is no need to sacrifice one tank against another if the use of artillery, traps, or aircraft can accomplish the same desire. With air superiority, the trick is weather and locating the target. Without air superiority, what use can having the best tanks be? It becomes a question of attrition. Can you get enough tanks to push the enemy forces back before they get destroyed? During WWII, the lack of ability to fly in bad weather was the only time that the Germans had an advantage in large scale tank attacks, but bad weather can work both ways.

What about Kursk? Air power,more or less equal. The Germans put their "best" tanks[Tigers] forward to take out the PAK fronts. How long would Shermans hang around
attacking such a front?
The 'toughest' defence line the Allies faced was a makeshift West Wall. IMO, breaking
through the opponents front and taking out his artillery and communications would come before supporting the infantry.

Seadog · #52 (**permalink**) December 1st, 2007, 12:10 AM

Pardon if my memory about the battle of Kursk is limited. As I recall it, the USSR knew that they were going to attack and where, months in advance. With parity in the air, then you exploit the enemy's weakness and draw them into a trap. In the case of the Germans, this would probably be their supply lines. Draw the tanks deep into your territory and flank them to attack their ammo and fuel sources. Have prepared revetments hidden where your tanks and destroyers can do a lot of damage, and then move to another one. Where possible, have choke points that can allow your artillery to take out as many as possible. Each battle is unique, but with the proper leadership, well trained troops will have a chance. The key, as usual, is whoever has the best communications and intel are ahead of the game. The main thing is if you are going into battle with medium tanks and the enemy has heavies, you do not go head to head.

Martin Bull · #53 (**permalink**) December 1st, 2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

As I recall it, the USSR knew that they were going to attack and where,

Slightly O/T, but thanks to a little place in Bedfordshire, if I remember rightly....

Jaeger · #54 (**permalink**) December 1st, 2007, 03:13 PM

FramerT and Seadog.

Now you are discussing doctrine not the armour in question. By Kursk the 'Panzerkiel' tactic was obsolete. No tank was built to break-through 22,000 km of trenches.

Seadog. Infantry support is not ideal use of armour. Integrated combined-arms fighting calls for combined-arms formations. In Normandy the first (Commonwealth/British)operations, and the infamous Goodwood, saw the tanks operate without their infantry to conserve manpower. A horrible failiure. By Bluecoat the Armoured divisions were fighting with a mixture of 1:1. 1 infantry battallion and one armoured regiment. A battlewinning recepie.

The 8th Army had deviced a special break-in formation that worked very well in the desert. (can be produced if you want to) But after that formation came the independant tank brigade. This system did not work in Normandy, since the allies were constantly running into kampfgruppen and other units before manouvre was possible.

FramerT

[The 'toughest' defence line the Allies faced was a makeshift West Wall. IMO, breaking
through the opponents front and taking out his artillery and communications would come before supporting the infantry.[/quote]

A tank is blind as a bat and deaf as a pole. It cannot negotiate rough terrain and spot entrenched AT-guns, Minefields, AT-Infantry and other tanks.

The result of using the Tank as you describe is evident in Goodwood.

Seadog · #55 (**permalink**) December 2nd, 2007, 03:44 AM

I probably should have phrased it differently. However, I do think that it was Patton that stated something similar. It is my opinion that you cannot win any battle with an over reliance on any one discipline. Tank against tank is not effective unless you have an obvious advantage in power projection. But against something like the tiger and panther, the sherman is out gunned. There is no reason to go tank on tank in a confrontation from the allied perspective. Sometimes you have no choice, but winners take advantage of their strengths and protect their weakness.

As ex-military, I have a preference for the strengths of the infantry. After the artillery, tanks, and air forces have pounded a target, it is the grunts that finish. No matter how much they punish a target, it is rare that there is not a force left capable of resistance. Ground pounders can get into places that no other weapon can reach. And they have much better ability to react and hide as circumstances dictate.